|
This is a very good argument; I think many good points have been made. I saw the same argument on NBA Shootaround last week, where Greg Anthony was all about Shaq, and he wouldn’t shut the fuck up and let Mark Stein make his point about his choice of Nash.
I am a statistic guy, and even though they play two different positions, I want to note some of the great accomplishments of each player this year
Shaq: His scoring is down compared to early years, but that is 100% irrelevant when you consider his team's success with his current production and his career best field goal percentage of 60%. He blocks shots, rebounds, and he passes well out of the double team. For a man of his size, he does a superb job at attacking the ball, instead of the player, enabling his to stay out of foul trouble fairly well. He plays the game very well, and fans who say that he is just too big and all he does is dunk, are seriously misguided. He , has to contend with the three second rule, zone defenses, and double teams, and offensive foul calls. In addition, early in his career he was much leaner, agile, and explosive.
Nash: He has achieved a rarity in efficiency, by shooting at least 50/40/80 (50% from the field, 40% from 3-point territory, and 80% from the foul line. His assists numbers are over a 11 per clip, and he is in the top 10 in assists per turnover. His team is the best in the league, and in the same breath as Shaq, he is the biggest acquisition that led to his team's marked improvement.
I pick Shaq. Reason being, Nash gets knocked defensively, and rightfully so. Nearly every starting point guard in the league is bigger than him, and it’s tough for him to fight through screens because of his frame. Most small point guards somewhat counteract that s by being thieves of the ball, but Nash really doesn't apply good pressure on the ball or steal the ball. Shaq is a very good defender, Nash is a below-average defender. It is not a cliché either, the game is really played on both sides of the ball.
|